Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed, potshots taken, or scientific views articulated are mine, and need not represent the opinions, potshots, or scientific views of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or the Federal Reserve System.

Basically, the students are accusing Mankiw of bias. They seem to think that he might be making stuff up, there's too much Adam Smith and not enough Keynes in his course, and they're worried about the "corporatization of higher education." I think of Mankiw's intermediate macro text, for example, as pretty middle-of-the-road, and very heavy on Keynes for my taste. Obviously these students are very confused and, I think, biased. My guess is that, if I showed up to teach Mankiw's class with my non-Ivy League ways, told them I was a Democrat, and taught out of Mankiw's book, that they would not be complaining about me.

What these students don't get is that taking Mankiw's class will actually give them the knowledge they need to be more effective political leaders, in a movement that looks quite ineffective and rudderless. A good dose of serious economics can help them isolate the defects in economic policies, and can show them how they can help poor people in effective ways. Knowledge is power, as I like to tell Ron Paul's supporters, who are equally confused.

10 comments:

How ridiculous is this story? I really blame the economics profession for all of this sort of nonsense. This is what happens when we teach undergraduates through analogy and incomplete models. I understand that the mathematical requirements for rigorous economics is not something undergrads can emulate, but when we reduce the field to a pantheon of opinions we draw a false equivalences between models.

Also, how much of the walkout do you think was inspired by Mankiw's own writings on redistribution as well as his involvement with Bush/Romney? I have to say that associating with Mitt Romney is a good way to get anyone to leave one's classroom.

Anon 1:04: "I have to say that associating with Mitt Romney is a good way to get anyone to leave one's classroom."

'Cause Mitt Romney has some terrible, communicable disease that the student might get?

....???????

Dave Backus: "...economics research has very little politics in it."

Agreed. I am sure that it would surprise almost every non-economist that practically no economist I know has his/her vote changed by his/her research. More frequently, their research is changed by their voting preferences, I'd say. Maybe I am too cynical.

I don't think that's true at all. For example most everyone at Minnesota is a democrat, and I think most would agree that their research tends to have implications that broadly support freer markets and less in the way of government attempts at macroeconomic stabilization.

I think economics has a bias and it's not pro free-markets. It's almost an axiom that central banks are benign entities who can do no wrong provided they are "competent" in monetary economics. Look at the current financial crisis. Bernanke Trichet and all central bankers look pretty powerless and confused. Meanwhile austrian economists foresaw this crisis and they provide the best explanation for what's happening right now. They might not have fancy models and professorships or snotty prizes and medals but they do make a lot of sense. While mainstream economists are currently wasting their time with ridiculous discussions like the zero-bound and macroprudential policies in the midst of a slow-motion train crash, the austrians and Ron Paul already have better answers, demonstrating a better understanding of how markets work.

"How ridiculous is this story? I really blame the economics profession for all of this sort of nonsense. This is what happens when we teach undergraduates through analogy and incomplete models."

Preferably undergraduate economics would be taught with more technical content, but the profession has opted for low technical content and higher undergraduate enrollments. But we can still distill frontier research for undergraduates - it just takes a little work.

In this case, I don't think that has anything to do with what was going on in Mankiw's class. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that Mankiw was careful about keeping politics out of his class discussion. My guess is that these students would think a "biased" discussion is when you show them supply and demand curves, and then use that to demonstrate what a minimum wage does. They want to hear the "other side," which is the magic of the living wage.

Anon 8:02: Yes, most economists at Minnesota are Dems. So are about 8 of 10 academic economists. But they are Dems because of social issues, not because their research supports Dem economic policies. That was my point.

Does everyone who votes left produce research that supports left causes? No. But it is more common to allow one's views on for-whom-to-vote to change the outcome of one's research than vice versa. At least among people who I know.

Steve: "My guess is that these students would think a "biased" discussion is when you show them supply and demand curves, and then use that to demonstrate what a minimum wage does. They want to hear the "other side," which is the magic of the living wage."